Identification Evidence in Group Disorder Legal Cases: Illustrative Case Examples and Practical Applications

By Natalie Popova, Legal Consultant | Express Law Solutions

Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific guidance, contact Express Law Solutions.

Example 1: Misidentification in a Night-Time Affray (Magistrates’ Court, London 2022)

A group of approximately fifteen individuals were involved in a street confrontation outside licensed premises. The defendant was arrested after a witness stated he was “one of the shouting men in a black jacket.”

During trial, cross-examination revealed:

at least seven individuals wore similar dark jackets,
lighting was poor and obstructed by moving vehicles,
the witness changed their description from “black jacket with hood” to “dark jacket, maybe no hood”, and
no video identification procedure was held despite Code D requiring one.

The bench found the identification “inherently unsafe,” applied Turnbull, and dismissed the case at submission of no case to answer. The court emphasised that the prosecution failed to distinguish presence from participation, a recurring problem in group disorder cases.

Example 2: Dock Identification Following Failure to Conduct an ID Parade (Crown Court, Manchester 2021)

Police failed to organise a video identification procedure where the complainant had explicitly stated he could “identify the main aggressor again.”

At trial, the prosecution relied on dock identification.

The judge excluded the identification under s78 PACE for three reasons:

Dock identification was “inevitably suggestive,” particularly months after the incident.
Police provided no justification for ignoring Code D requirements.
There were significant discrepancies between the complainant’s initial description and the defendant’s appearance.

The prosecution offered no further evidence. The case was dismissed, with the judge remarking that compliance with Code D is “not administrative nicety but constitutional necessity.”

Example 3: Group Disorder at a Football Match – CCTV Interpretation Error (Crown Court, Birmingham 2023)

A defendant was charged with violent disorder under s2 Public Order Act 1986 based on CCTV stills.

The prosecution argued the defendant was “clearly visible” throwing an object.

However, defence analysis demonstrated:

the CCTV timestamp was offset by 14 seconds, misaligning movement sequences;
the person in the footage had a distinctive tattoo not shared by the defendant;
police officers admitted under cross-examination that they “assumed identity based on general build.”

The jury acquitted after 40 minutes.

The judge later observed that the case illustrated “the risk of overconfidence in supposedly objective video evidence.”

Example 4: Witness Contamination Through Group Discussion (Magistrates’ Court, Kent 2020)

In a mass disorder incident outside a nightclub, three witnesses gave nearly identical statements describing the defendant’s clothing, height and actions. Defence disclosure showed the witnesses had discussed the incident together while waiting for police.

Code D 2.8 explicitly discourages witnesses from conferring before providing descriptions.

When cross-examined, witnesses admitted “comparing memories.”

The court held the evidence unreliable and dismissed the case, stating that “the apparent consistency was a product of contamination, not independent memory.”

Example 5: Failure to Prove Individual Participation (Youth Court, North East 2019)

A youth was charged with affray after being present in a group where several individuals threw punches.

The Crown relied on a witness stating he was “one of the boys in the group who moved forward.”

The court held:

s3 Public Order Act requires proof of individual violence or threat;
the prosecution failed to establish which group member did what;
identification evidence was inconclusive and conflated presence with participation.

Case dismissed. The court stressed that collective disorder does not dilute the requirement for individual proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Example 6: Successful Defence via s78 PACE (Crown Court, Bristol 2024)

Two defendants were accused of kicking a victim during a street fight.

Police relied on statements from two intoxicated witnesses and partial CCTV.

Defence argued under s78 PACE that:

witnesses viewed events from inside a moving taxi,
their descriptions evolved during multiple interviews,
no identification procedure was conducted, and
officers failed to preserve all CCTV angles.

The judge excluded the eyewitness identification entirely and ruled the remaining CCTV was insufficient to prove identity. Both defendants were acquitted.

Example 7: ECtHR Influence – Suggestive Identification Rejects Conviction (Analogy from Pishchalnikov v Russia)

Although not a UK case, Strasbourg jurisprudence shaped the court’s reasoning.

ECtHR emphasised that procedures which create a one-person “suggestive environment” violate Article 6 fairness.

Applying the same reasoning, an English judge in a 2023 Crown Court case said dock identification “would inevitably breach adversarial fairness,” referencing the ECtHR’s approach.

Example 8: Defendant Cleared After Demonstrating Clothing Mismatch (Crown Court, Leeds 2022)

The witness described the perpetrator wearing a navy hoodie.

CCTV showed the defendant wearing a light grey sweatshirt.

Prosecution argued lighting distortion.

Expert analysis confirmed CCTV colour reproduction was accurate.

Identification collapsed, and the defendant was acquitted.

Case Law: England and Wales

R v Turnbull [1977] QB 224

– Foundational principles governing visual identification evidence.

R v Forbes [2001] 1 AC 473

– Consequences of failure to comply with PACE Code D.

R v Bentley (1998) 162 JP 331

– Weight of identification evidence and fairness.

R v Fergus [1994] Crim LR 109

– Improper identification procedures.

R v Oakwell [2016] EWCA Crim 1246

– Distinguishing presence from participation in group violence.

R v Pendleton [2001] UKHL 66

– Appellate approach to unsafe convictions.

R v Luttrell [2004] EWCA Crim 1344

– Admissibility of opinion evidence relating to images and recordings.

European Court of Human Rights (ECHR Jurisprudence)

Article 6, European Convention on Human Rights

– Right to a fair trial.

Bonisch v Austria (1985) 7 EHRR 401

– Equality of arms and evidential fairness.

Pishchalnikov v Russia (2009) 48 EHRR 18

– Suggestive procedures and procedural unfairness.

Kasparov v Russia (2010) ECHR

– Judicial responsibility to scrutinise unreliable evidence.

Al-Khawaja and Tahery v United Kingdom (2012) 54 EHRR 23

– Use of risky evidence and overall fairness test.

Secondary Sources and Academic Commentary

Blackstone’s Criminal Practice (latest edition)

– Chapters on identification evidence and exclusion under s78 PACE.

Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice

– Turnbull directions; Code D compliance.

CPS Legal Guidance: Identification Evidence

– Prosecution approach to identification reliability.

Judicial College, Crown Court Compendium Part I

– Mandatory directions on identification.

Home Office Circulars on PACE Codes of Practice

This Article is related to Legal Case > Identification Evidence in Group Disorder Legal Cases: A Doctrinal, Procedural and Comparative Analysis Under English Law and ECHR Jurisprudence. Also you can see all Practice Case Studies

For more comprehensive insights, explore our Legal Cases page and review the applicable UK legal framework.

Disclosure Notice: All names and identifying details in the following case studies have been changed to protect client confidentiality. These examples are based on real scenarios, but any resemblance to actual persons or entities is purely coincidental.

Need help? At Express Law Solutions, we review, draft, and negotiate contracts to ensure they’re fair, clear, and enforceable.